Some 3,000 scientific robots that are plying the ocean have sent home a puzzling message. These diving instruments suggest that the oceans have not warmed up at all over the past four or five years. That could mean global warming has taken a breather. Or it could mean scientists aren’t quite understanding what their robots are telling them.
NPR: The Mystery of Global Warming’s Missing Heat
Roger Pielke Sr: Comments On The NPR Story By Richard Harris Entitled “The Mystery of Global Warming’s Missing Heat”
There is a news story by Richard Harris of NPR entitled“The Mystery of Global Warming’s Missing Heat“. The media have finally recognized that the upper oceans have not been warming for the last 4 years which indicates that if global warming is still continuing, the heat is being transferred deeper into the ocean that is being measured (or it could be radiated out into space). If so, it is not readily available to heat the atmosphere, and thus have a major effect on our weather patterns.
The importance of the oceans as a diagnostic for global warming and cooling is reported in the paper
Pielke Sr., R.A., 2003: Heat storage within the Earth system. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 84, 331-335.
The NPR article, however, concludes with the odd claim that
”Trenberth and Willis agree that a few mild years have no effect on the long-term trend of global warming. But they say there are still things to learn about how our planet copes with the heat.”
This is denial of the obvious. The observed absence of heat accumulation (of Joules) in the upper ocean (and in the troposphere) for the last four years means that there has been NO global warming in these climate metrics during this time period. It is unknown whether this is a short term aberration but, regardless, it is clear that the IPCC models have failed to skillfully predict this absence of warming. That should have been the conclusion stated at the end of the NPR story.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
It seems to me that there is a lot of doubt about the whole AGW thing. The arguments that happen on this blog assure me of that. The alarmists constantly try to convince everyone that it is done and dusted. If they have such an opinion why do they bother? This new information is interesting but does it matter? AGW is a western obsession the rest of the world is not going to take any notice other than giving it lip service because there is so much doubt. So I say to obsessed on this blog convince the Chinese as first step. On AGW the best science is only guessing where it will be in 20 years most of the world knows this argument is futile.
You missed this bit somehow.
“So with the oceans not warming, you would expect to see less sea level rise. Instead, sea level has risen about half an inch in the past four years. That’s a lot.”
When will we have that as a topic?
Sea levels are spatial and the half-inch is an average. Warmer seas aren’t the only factor involved in sea level rise. The IPCC have abandoned their unsuccessful decadal projections in favour of an unverifiable 90-year projection.
SJT says:
“So with the oceans not warming, you would expect to see less sea level rise. Instead, sea level has risen about half an inch in the past four years. That’s a lot.”
A couple points:
1/2 inch in 4 years is 3mm/year. This is the IPCC/alarmist estimates of sea level rise which means is should be viewed skeptically.
From this link:
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2008/01/04/lowering-sea-level-rise/#more-295
“Estimates of recent rates of global sea level rise (GSLR) vary considerably” noting that many scientists have calculated rates of 1.5 to 2.0 mm per year over the 20th century. They also show that other very credible approaches have led to a 1.1 mm per year result, and they note that “the IPCC [2007] calls for higher rates for the period 1993–2003: 3.1 ± 0.7.” They state that “Debate has centered on the relative contribution of fresh water fluxes, thermal expansion and anomalies in Earth’s rotation.”
“Kolker and Hameed used these relationships to statistically control for variations and trends in atmospheric circulation. They find that the “residual” sea level rise (that not explained by COA variability) in the North Atlantic lies somewhere between 0.49±0.25mm/yr and 0.93±0.39mm/yr depending on the assumptions they employ, which is substantially less than the 1.40 to 2.15 mm per year rise found in the data corrected for the glacial isostatic adjustment”
So if the sea temperature data is not consistent with the sea level rise it seems to me that the most likely conclusion is that the IPCC is overestimating sea level rise.
Good, I pointed this little tidbit out in a link last week. At least four years of no warming, in fact, minor cooling, of the oceans is more significant than the trend in GMST since 2001. Curiouser and curiouser.
Science Daily 2006 “Although the average temperature of the upper oceans has significantly cooled since 2003, the decline is a fraction of the total ocean warming over the previous 48 years”
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/09/060921123321.htm
I suggest we don’t donate to every blog spotter running the latest yarn from Jason’s mate Willis. Some good info on probing the puddle.
http://wo.jcommops.org/cgi-bin/WebObjects/Argo.woa/2/wo/41KfZg6rWjj0bvMP8bU6Bg/0.1.0.40.3.1.1.5.0.6.0
With all this sort of stuff the dopey denialists jump on very quickly. Guys it all happens a tad more slowly than that – wait till they check their methodology – we’ve been here before in similar circumstances with Christy and Spencer’s inability to calibrate satellite data for orbital and sensor drift.
And all revealed when Tasman Sea is warming like anything and the recent Southern Ocean transect reported by CSIRO is warming. Accelerated Antarctic glacial movement from frontal erosion of ice shelf systems. Guys let’s just linger till it’s sorted. – (as the article says).
So as they say on parade “Wait for it !”.
So all Luke can come up with is two pieces of anecdotal warming. As if the Tasman sea is a suitable surrogate for the planet? As if a single line transit between Hobart and Antarctica is a suitable surrogate for the planet?
Only 3mm/year in sea level rise, 30cm/century? And this is the worst case? Shock horror. If you really need to rattle your emotional daggs then why not have a little ponder on the implications of JP Morgan’s derivative exposure. And then dwell for a moment on the implications of the Chinese Yuan at parity with the US Dollar.
Back to thread topic:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=88520025
Why aren’t the ocean’s warming?
And from the link:
“But if the aquatic robots are actually telling the right story, that raises a new question: Where is the extra heat all going?
“Kevin Trenberth at the National Center for Atmospheric Research says it’s probably going back out into space. The Earth has a number of natural thermostats, including clouds, which can either trap heat and turn up the temperature, or reflect sunlight and help cool the planet.
[it can also rain and release water vapour back to earth]
“That can’t be directly measured at the moment, however.
“Unfortunately, we don’t have adequate tracking of clouds to determine exactly what role they’ve been playing during this period,” Trenberth says.
[of course with the NASA Aqua Satellite we are starting to get a handle on this – on the hydrological cycle and what role it plays]
Which bring me back here: http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/002844.html
I never understood the whole concept of oceans expanding due to heat. Think of the kettle on the stove. When you turn on the heat the water level doesn’t rise, it gives off water vapor.
I guess the counter argument will be increased water vapor in the sky will lead to positive feedback. Still waiting on a report of someone getting a nasty cloudburn.
Jennifer: I saw another point made by Willis n Co, when questioning instruments and data we can’t gloss over sea and sea level. IMO rising SL remains the best indicator of SST and warming at depth in the short term. Eventually homogenous mixing will grab more sea ice and glaciers as warming continues so that lot remains another indicator.
Although we can’t discount errors in ARGO probes or their transmissions it’s highly unlikely. More likely is our spatial data analysis, things such as the ocean imbalance between NH and SH giving a false global average. Let’s guess that comes down to the model hey
Regardless of my thoughts, everyone should have a good look at the picture.
http://www.ifremer.fr/co/co0401/images/big/global/TEMP_10m_currentDay.png
James: I never understood the whole concept of oceans expanding due to heat:
Heating water does expand it you can see the coefficient of expansion here:
http://hypertextbook.com/physics/thermal/expansion/
note the unusual character of it – the coefficient is temperature dependant unlike other materials. Below 4C it is negative and there it expands s it cools.
Looking here:
http://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/link=/earth/Water/temp.html&edu=high
See where ocean temperature below 2000 m is less than 4C if it gets cooler there it actually expands too. It’s interesting behaviour.
you can’t see the volume of water in a cooking pot increase because the pot is too small and the expansion too small to notice visually.
So what we’re postulating here is “step-change” in the temperature time series. We got to some threshold point and something switched in? And so we have a statis in the temperature time series.?
Anything’s possible I guess.
But this 2007 paper http://meteora.ucsd.edu/~jnorris/reprints/NorrisGwattRevised.pdf leads one to think we really still don’t know near enough about clouds globally to extend Spencer’s hypothesis.
Gavin; IMO rising SL remains the best indicator of SST and warming at depth in the short term.
Even if below 2000m & above ~50 deg latitudes it expands as it cools?
Just curious.
So no warming for four years… Oh well guess the AGW scientists were wrong.
Proved beyond a shadow of a doubt…
Yet again…
By what is essentially a newspaper clipping…
Mty newspaper clipping beats yours
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23405070-30417,00.html
” Consequently, it is currently not possible to ascertain whether recent multidecadal variations in clouds have mitigated or exacerbated anthropogenic global warming. More research needs to be done to identify and remove apparent artifacts from the satellite and surface cloud datasets.”
But we do know enough about clouds to say that their influence on the GCM’s is neglible and they, the GCMs, are putting valid information for policy makers to bet the economy on.
What a tangled web we weave.
Mr TBy what is essentially a newspaper clipping…
an interesting equivocation you are employing there Mr T interesting but a fallacy nonetheless. The clipping only tells the story that heavy lifting was done by 3000 robot buoys.
A couple of quick points, first one for James, second one for Jan
1) Glass thermometers work on a liquid expanding with temperature.
2) Liquids are incompressible hence we have hydraulics for engineering
Luke: A step hey, I luv discontinuities
A couple of quick points, first one for James, second one for Jan
1) Glass thermometers work on a liquid expanding with temperature.
2) Liquids are incompressible hence we have hydraulics for engineering
Luke: A step hey, I luv discontinuities
Gavin:Liquids are incompressible hence we have hydraulics for engineering.
yes gavin I’ve worked with hydraulics tanks have them you know blacksmiths use them too these days.
Now we seem to have a problem with red herrings AKA irrelevant comments.
What possible relevance do your remarks have to the temperature dependent coefficient expansion of water?
That article by Steve Hatfield-Dodds in The Austrlian was really something. And the headline, make a snake-oil salesman proud.
Jan, so if it’s an artcile you just believe it? I am amazed at people’s ‘skeptical’ skills around here. For skeptics, you are pretty bad at being skeptical.
Jan, so if it’s an article you just believe it? I am amazed at people’s ‘skeptical’ skills around here. For skeptics, you are pretty bad at being skeptical.
Mr T, so if it’s an article you just believe it?
Mr T by all means continue your equivocation it remains a fallacy.
My skills are adequate to detect falsity in your arguments.
Jan, that’s hilarious! You want me to counter a news clipping… It’s bizarre.
My point is that this clipping is meaningless. Not that it’s wrong, not that it’s right, just that it’s irrelevant.
Have you looked at the source data?
Paul, and yourself, are jumping to conclusions. And it’s interesting (to me) that your skepticism varies according to what the information is. If it’s in favour of your personal favourite theory, it’s great and fine. But otherwise it’s “I’m a skeptic”.
Mr T:that’s hilarious! You want me to counter a news clipping… It’s bizarre.
What’s bizarre is your equivocation and your belief that it’s valid argument.
There is nothing more or less to your remark so stop pretending there is.
Jan, what are you waffling about?
“What’s bizarre is your equivocation and your belief that it’s valid argument.”
What is a valid argument? What are you talking about?
I repeat:
My point is that this clipping is meaningless. Not that it’s wrong, not that it’s right, just that it’s irrelevant.
Mr T,My point is that this clipping is meaningless.
Do I really have to educate you in informal logic too. Oh well start here:
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/equivoqu.html
The discussion is about the article not the fact that it was printed in a newspaper. The article has content and meaning the fact that YOU don’t like the source is entirely irrelevant.
Jan, you are getting bogged down in petty semantics.
For a start, I never had an argument. Something you missed, despite me saying so numerous times.
It’s doesn’t have content I “don’t like” – You have decide that. There is nothing in the content that I don’t like.
I have been pointing out the hypocrisy over ‘skepticism’ at this blog. As the skepticism varies wildly according to the nature of the material.
Again. I am not disupting the claims of the article, as it doesn’t make any claims. Roger Pielke Sr decided the article should have come to a different conclusion.
Mr T,you are getting bogged down in petty semantics
You are starting to get the picture equivocation is a fallacy of semantics.
“I never had an argument.”
You did let me remind you
“Proved beyond a shadow of a doubt…
Yet again…
By what is essentially a newspaper clipping…”
They equivocation comes in the play on the ambiguity of whether we are discussing the content of the article or the source implying the source is the reason for
” My point is that this clipping is meaningless.”
I’m not the one playing semantic games here you are.
now this comes close to an outright lie:
” It’s doesn’t have content I “don’t like” – You have decide that.”
I didn’t decide that I said you did like the source i.e. NPR you said yourself it was meaningless and irrelevant all the while distracting us from what is really interesting about the article is that right or wrong mainstream American media has actually finally published an article which generally contradicts the more popular alarmist stance.
That is interesting not the rubbish you’ve been waffling about.
Jan: I was just thinking back, maybe there should be a negative in the differential equation pile when we consider ocean depth and changing density of sea water etc. However there is an extensive mathematical treatment of everything (way beyond my capacity at this point) in this 2000 AMS online article that refers to the CSIRO coupled GCM’s.
http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1175%2F1520-0442(2000)013%3C1384%3ATEIOAC%3E2.0.CO%3B2&ct=1
Take care over Easter and go right through it hey
Jan, I was being facetious with those comments. You missed the sarcasm tags.
Jan, I don’t “dislike” the source. The source actually gives (what seems like) rational and reasonable reasons for why the oceans aren’t warming at the surface. Roger Pielke then complains that the article didn’t come to the right conclusion.
The article as far as AGW is concerned comes to the ‘right’ conclusion.
Interesting to postulate that humanity made have been having an effect on climate for a long time through land clearing and the development of agriculture – and even interdicted a potential ice age. The ‘Anthropocene’. So CO2 can be handy stuff if you’re marginal on a glaciation – insolation letting you down? – release a curative elixir of CO2!
http://courses.eas.ualberta.ca/eas457/Ruddiman2003.pdf
Berger gives a maybe – err plausible.
http://www.springerlink.com/content/n451044gu2774q03/
Claussen et al aren’t so sure http://www.springerlink.com/content/x5x3030jm368676k/
RC says it’s a maybe
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=223
Mr T,You missed the sarcasm tags.
you forgot to put them in. I’m happy to let it go at that.
Jan,
what IS very interesting is the way oceans store and release heat.
Luke, didn’t Tim Flannery discuss that? And I had a link to a paper, in another post… Can’t remember. The author was implying that CO2 levels started rising (against the usual trend) about 8000 years ago. Which coincides with the start of agrarianism.
I remember hearing of an article written by Arthur C Clarke (sad to hear of his passing) in the 40s or 50s advocating the large scale use of coal to avoid the next ice-age.
Personally I don’t like the ‘Anthropocene’. Heck we only just started the Holocene! But I am a geo, and I like things stable… SLOW changes.
Mr T,what IS very interesting is the way oceans store and release heat.
agreed
Interesting how the reliability of the ARGO network is questioned when it doesn’t give the expected result.
Not really – floats have been wrong before. And the scientists themselves brought it up. Plus you have to contemplate that the oceans would suddenly stop warming – why? Maybe they are OK – maybe they are not. We’ll see.
Mt T – yes Flannery talks about the Anthropocene
Is it sudden?
This story is based on the Willis et al paper, that initially showed ocean cooling, but was then corrected to show non-warming.
Paul: Is it sudden?
I suspect it’s just Luke adding a little colour of his own.
We’ve been heading down towards a solar minimum the past ~6 years I don’t know if has bottomed out yet but should be close. I think it;s reasonable that the oceans showed little or no warming.
However I’m prepared to wait for the official results before making any sort of final judgement that satisfies me.
“yes Flannery talks about the Anthropocene”
Flim-Flam Flannery also talks about “Gaia”, “Magic Gates”, and of course, hockey sticks. What a loony nut-job he is. And of course, revered by all drooling, pablum-gobbling climate hysterics everywhere.
Maybe we should put pictures of the missing heat on milk cartons.
Luke:
‘Not really – floats have been wrong before.’
Nice to see you’re a sceptic at heart, Luke. But then:
‘Plus you have to contemplate that the oceans would suddenly stop warming – why? Maybe they are OK – maybe they are not. We’ll see.’
This is now the second set of observational data from Argo – surely the best data set we have – that shows an absence of warming. They might be wrong, but it’s beginning to look like the observational data don’t fit the model results, and that suggests that we should question the models and the hypothesis upon which they are based before we question the observational data, but there is a tendency in the realm of virtual science for the reverse to happen.
Even Jim Hansen has remarked on the preference for model results over observational data. What we particularly need under these circumstances is open debate between those who adhere to a paradigm and those who question it – not attempts to silence dissent by using terms like ‘denier’ (frequently used by Luke), first invoked quite deliberately by Lomborg’s critics to try to liken him to a Holocaust denier. For mine, that’s close enough to Godwin’s Law of Internet Discussions, since it acts as a signifier for Hitler, and personally, I adhere to the codicil that says that at that point the discussion is over and the person invoking the reference loses.
So, nice to see the scepticism on your part, Luke – but why not drop the ‘denialist’ references. They detract from your arguments.
“IMO rising SL remains the best indicator of SST and warming at depth in the short term.”
Don’t think so. Glaciers could continue to retreat for centuries even after a temperature equilibrium is reached. In which case sea levels would continue to increase.
So here is the University of Colorado sea level page. Just doing a little subjective eyeballing, it looks like the trend for the last four years is less than the overall trend. Most of the points for that period seem to be below the trendline. It’s quite possible that there has been some deceleration to the rate of sea level rise. Of course the fact that global sea ice is also about .7 million square kilometers above average helps to verify the temperature readings.
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/
How do the effects of CO2 “take a breather”?
“Mty newspaper clipping beats yours”
Manufacturing a billion buggy whips over the next few years would also increase GDP. But it wouldn’t do much for the quality of life.
“”yes Flannery talks about the Anthropocene”
Flim-Flam Flannery also talks about “Gaia”, “Magic Gates”, and of course, hockey sticks. What a loony nut-job he is. And of course, revered by all drooling, pablum-gobbling climate hysterics everywhere.”
Flannery is trying to talk to people in language they will understand what is going on.
“Gaia” – the remarkably stable climate we have had, in which time civilisation was able to flourish. He does not believe in any goddesses, it’s just a name given to a self-correcting period of climate that has been remarkably stable.
“Magic Gate” – stable states in a chaotic system. even in chaotic systems, there can be stable states of behaviour. “Force” that system, and it will change over to another state.
“Hockey Sticks” – repeatedly researched and verified, by independent sources. Even if it is wrong, it only makes about %10 of the case for AGW.
“Not really – floats have been wrong before. ”
So have surface stations.
“Flannery is trying to talk to people in language they will understand what is going on.”
He could only do that if he knew what was going on.
“”Hockey Sticks” – repeatedly researched and verified, by independent sources. ”
Which independent sources would those be. Mann’s students? People who have published other papers with Mann?
Aynsley – Denialist might grate but so does the alarming use of alarmist here.
The main reason to be sceptical on this issue is that the research team have raised the issue themselves.
And it has nothing to do with your predilection for model bashing – that’s an irrelevant ruse as is drawing everything back to Hansen as some point of truth. There has been a strong warming signal in the oceans well documented, and recent reports (not a cherry pick – just by the way – of a warming Tasman and Southern Ocean) and we are told that the oceans have suddenly stopped warming. It’s surprising. I don’t dismiss the new information outright but it is surprising.
And as you know Aynsley what is missing from most arguments is what the skeptics don’t tell you. The dozen bits left out. So without the more fullsome discussion which you ever so rarely get, it’s only pseudo-scepticism.
I don’t think “denier” is used to silence dissent – we have wall to wall dissent – bleated from every blog and rooftop – A whole national newspaper devoted to war on science. Whole New York conferences devoted to the issue.
Somehow I don’t think criticism has shut Lomborg up.
How do the effects of CO2 take a breather – what a try-on – you would expect have seen non-linearities in the climate system – why has the climate been warming with no solar influence (and as you guys assure us no CO2 influence). It’s done it by “magic”. And suddenly by magic it has stopped warming. Sceptics contribution to explanation = zero. And don’t say sunspots coz we can point to all the times when that didn’t do anything.
“So have surface stations?” – perhaps in specific examples, but what’s the impact on our overall understanding – funny that the averaged record seems to match the satellite observation in dips and bumps. So how have exactly have you been misled in broad conclusions? You haven’t.
Luke:
“Not really – floats have been wrong before. And the scientists themselves brought it up. Plus you have to contemplate that the oceans would suddenly stop warming – why? Maybe they are OK – maybe they are not. We’ll see.”
There are 3,000 of them.How many would you say are wrong?
The oceans have “suddenly” stopped warming because the instruments indicates it.
This is a dreadful attempt to bolster your apology because the floats does not support the never validated AGW theory.
LOL
Sunset – what a silly comment. I’m stunned how utterly uninformed gimps like you are. Research the previous issue with floats. They can ALL be wrong if what they are measuring isn’t correctly calibrated. Are you really that thick.
Correction to ‘‘Recent cooling of the upper ocean’’
Josh K. Willis, John M. Lyman, Gregory C. Johnson, and John Gilson
Received 9 April 2007; accepted 17 July 2007; published 18 August 2007.
Citation: Willis, J. K., J. M. Lyman, G. C. Johnson, and J. Gilson
(2007), Correction to ‘‘Recent cooling of the upper ocean,’’
Geophys. Res. Lett., 34, L16601, doi:10.1029/2007GL030323.
[1] Two systematic biases have been discovered in the
ocean temperature data used in ‘‘Recent cooling of the
upper ocean’’ by John M. Lyman, Josh K. Willis, and
Gregory C. Johnson (Geophysical Research Letters, 33,
L18604, doi:10.1029/2006GL027033). These biases are
both substantially larger than sampling errors estimated by
Lyman et al. [2006], and appear to be the cause of the rapid
cooling reported in that work.
[2] Most of the rapid decrease in globally integrated
upper (0–750 m) ocean heat content anomalies (OHCA)
between 2003 and 2005 reported by Lyman et al. [2006]
appears to be an artifact resulting from the combination of
two different instrument biases recently discovered in the in
situ profile data. Although Lyman et al. [2006] carefully
estimated sampling errors, they did not investigate potential
biases among different instrument types. One such bias has
been identified in a subset of Argo float profiles. This error will ultimately be corrected. However, until corrections
have been made these data can be easily excluded from
OHCA estimates (see http://www.argo.ucsd.edu/ for more
details). Another bias was caused by eXpendable Bathy-
Thermograph (XBT) data that are systematically warm
compared to other instruments [Gouretski and Koltermann,
2007]. Both biases appear to have contributed equally to the
spurious cooling.
So Lyman corrected his own 2006 paper. Fair enough.
I neither can nor uncare what the actual true measurements really are. Data are data.
But you also learn not to jump at each new report or paper until things like this are sorted out. Takes time.
I can see your point Luke. I’m sure it takes longer, each time, to come up with yet another reasonably plausable bit of BS, as to why the data does not agree with the theory.
http://www.middlebury.net/op-ed/global-warming-01.html
I think all on this thread should read this url.
I have been a skeptic “without cause” until now.
fluff
It’s all about the conduct of science, Luke! Confronted with data that challenges a theory, the first instinct of the scientist should not just be to challenge the data, but question the theory. Using signifiers like ‘denier’ is profoundly anti-scientific, and it is in no way comparable with ‘alarmist’ or ‘warmer’, both of which are short-hand words that contain no pejorative meaning attempting to denigrate the target in any way comparable to ‘Holocaust Denier’. which Harvey and Pimm used in their review in Nature of Lomborg’s book.
To recap, Harvey and Pimm likened Lomborg to the Holocaust Denier who demands that the victims be named, simply because he questioned the dubious results form the species-area model. The observational data in that instance are that the IUCN estimates about 800 species have become extinct since 1500, when we have had reasonable historical records. Nobody thinks that the data are complete, but they are substantially short (by several orders of magnitude) of the model results suggesting 27,000, 50,000 or whatever per annum. I think Lomborg might have a point, and the resort to Nazi analogies betrayed the weakness of the Harvey/Pimm argument
You do the same by using the term ‘denier’ or ‘denialist’ – and by resorting to expressions such as ‘Are you really that thick’ to sunsettommy.
Incidentally, data are only are only data when their collection has been subjected to critical scrutiny, and we can have confidence in their rigour, and the size of the error terms, and that confidence comes from subjecting them to critical scrutiny, not from dismissing those who question them as ‘deniers’. And we should seek data that will test our theories, no those that ‘are consistent with’ them (how many times do we hear that expression form climate scientists?). Roger Pielke Jr has recently been posing the question ‘what evidence would be accepted as falsifying the theory?’ If none would count, if warming includes cooling, etc, then we have moved beyond the realm of science. Pielke, of course, has been labelled a Denier for his troubles.
He (like I) accepts there is a problem meriting our attention, and this accusation is as unfair as it is facile. But forgive me if I continue to think that the behaviour of the climate system over the past century or so represents a better ‘experiment’ involving sensitivity of the system to GHGs than a bunch of models based upon short data sequences, proxy measurements, flux adjustments, values for aerosols that we don’t know, etc……As Alfred Korzybsky once famously remarked, the map is not the territory. We seem to have lost sight of that truth, to the extent that we even put error bars on model products, a practice that annoys the hell out of a climate scientist I know (a warmer, too).
I guess he can be dismissed as a Denier, too, but I think those who want to rationalise away an contrary observations might just be the ones in denial – or exhibiting cognitive dissonance, at least.
Luke has yet to understand that when data contradict a theory, it is the theory that has to be checked, not the data. Concluding the data to be faulty because the theory cannot be wrong is simply pseudoscience, which AGW always was.
Louis,
the *impeccable* satellite data from the UAH has had to be fixed several times now. Not because Global Warming theory was wrong, but because Christy and his pals had their measurements wrong.
Aynsley have you ever done any real science yourself? – like with technical data gathered by complex instruments. Or messy climate data. The first thing you do with collected data is have a very good look at them and what’s possibly wrong with them. Not rush to test them against theory. Calibration, radiometric correction, sensor drift, geometric correction depending on data sets. The case with Spencer and Christy’s calibration and sensor drift a case example of how to confuse trends. Lyman’s self correction another.
Use incorrect radiometric correction (remote sensing) and green vegetation become brown and vice versa.
Have you ever spoken to any serious climate modellers about what they do. They’re not running virtual reality with no consideration of the real world response. Indeed model validation is the main thing that climate modellers do.
But get your opinion up close and personal not from a political perspective. There are real people in there taking things very seriously.
As for the protest about Lomborg’s treatment – well you really have to kidding. When you guys also start complaining about the rampant abuse of senior climate scientists by all and sundry it might register on my meter. The level of abuse is beyond belief so you guys have to expect the same courtesy in return.
There is never any critique about patently stupid skeptic material – as anything for the cause is fair enough. So RC does it at times – like jumping on the thermohaline is slowing story and Stoat is at it today rampantly disagreeing with Hansen.
What really disappoints me is that you guys have linked the science to the policy outcome. Of course they are obviously linked. But if we dislike/disagree/refuse to accept the policy proposals – does that still mean the science is wrong. But that is the logic of the debate.
In any case if skeptics were truly serious we would have much better engagement with mainstream science and policy instead of secret societies and a fifth column style – we would also have a report on this cooling disaster I keep hearing about. Where is it?
SJT Let me remind you of Hansens Y2K error. It took another further unpublished adjustment for him to claw back parity of 1998 with 1938.
UAH data all adjustments are made as necessary and published.
I know who I’d rather trust and with Hansen as Willis’s boss???
Oh now we have a cooling disaster?
Luke, I have always wondered about whether you actually have done any real science yourself.
In case you have forgotten, it is called practising the scientific method. I do it for a living in mineral exploration which, come to think of it, is probably the bext example of the scientific method.
We propose an hypothesis and we test it by sampling and drilling. When sampling and drilling don’t produce the results we seek, we go back to the initial hypothesis and see what, in light of the new data, we got wrong.
You and your climate people “think” you are doing science – you are not.
Louis: Give us an estimate for your total number of cores drilled over say a decade, then guess ratio of the mineralization encountered with respect to the probable reserve undiscovered. A comparison with our 3000 probes may help us in building confidence with the latest ARGO ocean data sets.
I suspect a million samples is hardly enough to fully study temperature, given the area and depth covered at this point. Also much of the data is influenced by currents. Traveling probes could be virtually stuck for quite a while in their original stream position sampling the same old brew.
Gavin,
Those stats are within JORC standards for QAQC. My data fit those standards but whether your probe data could, let alone might, is something else.
I suppose its based on what the measurements were designed to test…..no amount of measurement could ever hope to support a dopey hypothesis. Mind you, if the data were random then Factor Analysis might improve perceptions.
Gavin,
incidentally, asking me for an estimate of cores drilled. and then guessing the ratio of mineralisation……
Have you actually thought through what you posted above?
(Not often I am handed the rope by which one’s debater proposes to hang himself with)
“secret societies and a fifth column style”. Interesting, coming from a card-carrying member of the hockey stick cult.
“this cooling disaster I keep hearing about”
Luke seems to have “disaster” on the brain, due, no doubt to too many viewings of “An Inconvenient Truth”, and “The Day After Tomorrow.
Perhaps he should try science for a change, instead of science fiction.
But, I suppose that would be asking too much.
Hockey stick isn’t important to me as an AGW issue. Anyway Brucey – just tell me you support Archibald’s research findings. Surely you do. Do you?
As for cooling disaster – no no no – that’s what you guys are telling me. So you’re saying now there is no worry at all about significant cooling.? Or are you not.
You probably don’t know whether you’re coming or going.
And of course given you don’t believe in the temperature measurements how could you. ROTFL and LMAO.
“funny that the averaged record seems to match the satellite observation in dips and bumps.”
Since the satellites are being calibrated to the surface temp, why should that be informative.
“So how have exactly have you been misled in broad conclusions?”
A. As Ross McKittrick’s paper explains, the surface record could be off by up to .3C due to an inadequate accounting of UHI effects.
B. Pushing older rural temps down when they don’t agree with the wished for trend, as Hansen does, has never been explained to anyone’s satisfaction.
C. The station meta data that is needed to correct raw station data is absent for most of the world’s data.
D. Many of the stations that are considered to be pristine rural sites are not.
E. Most of the temp reconstruction proxies, when updated to current times, don’t show the same amount of temp increase as the instrument record.
So the instrument record may well be misleading us about it’s broad conclusions. But of course you like the surface temp results, as least prior to the last 6 years, while you don’t like the ocean temp results. So you try to pretend that the surface temps are reliable while the ocean temps are not.
“Hockey stick isn’t important to me as an AGW issue.” ROTFLMAO! So, Lukey, hockey stick not important? But you still believe in it right? Be sure to check with your hockey stick cult team leader first before you answer; wouldn’t want you to get in trouble.
“As for cooling disaster – no no no…” still with the disasters Lukey? Tsk tsk. It’s only the drooling, pablum-gobbling climate hysterics like you who blather on about disasters.
Oh well the satellite data must be bunk too then, given they mirror the other series. Spencer and Christy cop it again … poor guys.
Gee we don’t know whether we’re cooling or warming or what. Given the way things are melting we must be cooling then. I think that makes sense.
But funny though that you guys do use the surface records when you want to make a point – no hypocrisy there – well there probably is a fair bit of hypocrisy – well actually a very very large amount of hypocrisy. I guess that would make you hypocrites then.
Ah yes Brucey Woosey – YOU dribbly denialists are the one talking about cooling disasters – here – this blog – so I just want to see your report on the issue. And actually you’re the ones bringing up disasters all the time and the word catastrophic. YOU lot – not moi !
And BTW tell me – do you support your fellow denialist Archibald’s research papers? I mean surely you support ALL your fellow denialists – don’t you? Without exception?
Hockey Stick nah – McIntyre has succeeded – I don’t think we have a clue about the Medieval period at all – too many problematic proxies and too many potential errors. SO like the temperature record we don’t know anything.
So not knowing anything is what the ex tobacco and mining shills are all about. Create maximum uncertainty. Make it as foggy as possible.
Don’t actually contribute anything of use – just create confusion and ALARM about being confused.
Gee I’m confused – haven’t we discussed this before. Maybe we haven’t haven’t? I don’t know whether I’m warming or cooling.
I actually love the ocean ocean results – so hitherto we’ve been sinking a vast amount of heat into the oceans. Now God has done a hand-brake turn and chucked a U-ie. Although we don’t know what the handbrake is and some bloke with dodgy rubber ducks has measured it. So “Nature” must be very powerful. Although the concept of Nature is a bit pagan so we shouldn’t think that (have to keep our US mates with us here).
Although maybe there is no God (sorry sepos) and he doesn’t play dice but internal variability (aka “Nature”) does. So maybe then this is actually an upside down Hockey Stick (so both Mann and McIntyre got it wrong) and that explains what we’re seeing.
But I reckon it’s cosmic rays interacting with the seawater causing cooling microbubbles of heavy water which are cooler than the surrounding seawater. And this is only happened as we’ve gone through the P100 particulate aerosol nucleation threshold. I have a paper on it coming out soon in E&E.
‘Aynsley have you ever done any real science yourself?’ Luke, as a matter of fact I have, but that’s not the point. I doubt very much whether Karl Popper did any ‘real’ science. (I’m always amused by the use of claims to be ‘real’: politicians claim the ‘real’ truth; Mann’s defenders get a PR firm to sponsor ‘Real’Climate). In short, committing the genetic fallacy adds nothing to your argument.
It might help if you read again what I actually wrote:
‘Confronted with data that challenges a theory, the first instinct of the scientist should not just be to challenge the data, but question the theory.’
I did not state that we should give data quality a free pass, but that we should not do only that. As Jan notes, Hansen’s Y2K error shows us the need for sceptical inquiry into the data. This is especially so when those data are subject to substantial manipulation by those who are not only performing the analysis, but arguing for particular policy prescriptions. Transparency and disclosure are then of paramount importance (unlike the blogosphere, where many patrol anonymously like white corpuscles searching for the sites of infectious ideas that must be dealt with)
My point is about the use of signifiers like ‘denier’ (and rhetorical devises like ‘real’) to suppress the dissent hat is fundamental to science.
Paul Feyerabend was surely correct in observing that scientists lie, cheat and eye-gouge to defend pet theories, which is why he insist on the virtues of anarchy and condemns as dangerous any attempts to impose ‘official’ science (like the IPCC, perhaps). But Popper’s demands for falsifiability represent a better set of prescriptinve criteria against which to judge science.
Luke tries to look smart:
“Sunset – what a silly comment. I’m stunned how utterly uninformed gimps like you are. Research the previous issue with floats. They can ALL be wrong if what they are measuring isn’t correctly calibrated. Are you really that thick.”
Then he tries to hammer me with a sub link he must not have read.
http://www-argo.ucsd.edu/Acpres_offset2.html
Excerpt:
“Pressure offset errors in WHOI/FSI Argo float profiles include a subset (a) that can be corrected exactly using automated procedures and a subset (b) that requires expert examination to produce an approximate correction.
Profiles in subset (a) have now been corrected, and replacement of GDAC files for these profiles will be completed by 20 October. Procedures for real-time correction of these profiles are in place as of 10 October. These floats have been removed from the greylist as of 10 October, meaning the profiles will be available on the GTS.
Profiles in subset (b) are undergoing expert examination and the files are being replaced on the GDAC as they are completed. Errors are noted in the files corresponding to the uncertainty in the pressure correction. Since these profiles cannot be corrected automatically, the corresponding instruments continue to be greylisted (i.e. profiles are not on the GTS).
While studying the pressure offset errors, a related problem was discovered in a group of WHOI/SBE profiles. Reported pressures from these instruments corresponded to the bottom pressure of bins rather than to the mid-bin pressure. This ½ bin pressure offset error is generally less than for the profiles noted in (1) above. For the affected WHOI/SBE instruments, all profiles have now been corrected and are available on the GDACS. The real-time data stream for these instruments has been corrected (as of 14 September). These instruments are not greylisted.”
This was dated, October 11, 2007
Meaning that already at the time.They were making the corrections.
The entire program begain in year 2000.It is a very new program.It is not surprising that a few problems will crop up.
Despite some problems.It is vastly better than the previous surface collection methods.
Once again you over ran your mouth.
By the way Luke,
Do you know how many floats were sending data errors?
Hint: The answer is in one of the internal links.
Well it is the entire point Aynsley – spoken like a true armchair critic and academic. How many climate modellers have you spoken with ? I don’t reckon you have a clue about how science is really done. Time for a field trip/sabbatical.
A PR firm to “sponsor” Realclimate” – and you’re objective are you. You’re starting to sound as bad as the other conspiratorial tossers on here. RC simply follows many groups into blogging. If some pinko commie enviro-sympathisers host it does it matter. Next we’ll be saying researchers contracting to R&D organisations are “on the take” and money goes direct into their house loans.
Hansen’s Y2K error was a piffly issue really. Have you ever looked at a graph of the century long time series and noticed how much difference it makes to your interpretation?
Do the RC articles look like something the average dude would read for PR purposes. It’s only for climate junkies.
Really what’s being suppressed – you have wall to blogs on anti-AGW – the whole Australian newspaper and various Sunday rags run anti stories all the time. Sensation sells.
The problem is you guys in your secret societies like Lavoisier look pretty spooky. Looks like a wedge political group to outsiders. Your shrill rantings are just bouncing off policy types and leaving them cold. What’s needed is a much better style and argument. Where’s your mainstream engagement processes?
BTW I’m still getting round to reading your book – cost a packet too – I have it sitting in a Pentangle on the lounge room floor to “prepare it” so I’m not overrun. 🙂
Well Sunset at least you have confirmed you are tedious …
(1) the floats had errors
(2) it altered the overall interpretation enough that a new paper was issued (like duh – the point) – and we’ve been here also with satellite data (a few times) – so they can still ALL still be wrong
(3) “It is not surprising that a few problems will crop up.” – exactly read you own words
So as I said maybe they’re right – if so very interesting – maybe they’re not. Let’s just give it a few months and see what transpires. Early days.
“Paul Feyerabend was surely correct in observing that scientists lie, cheat and eye-gouge to defend pet theories” – somewhat agree – most of them are AGW skeptics.
Luke: you are in book peddlers inc.
Interesting: Argo data errors discovered thus far relate to “pressure” offset errors. When I took a stab back up this thread with “hydraulics” I was vaguely recalling problems associated with early deep sea data logging design. Henry’s law?. Seeking more on the relationship of pressure, temperature and probes I tried Google again. Given the article in Argo news I was disappointed with their explanation of the term “bins”.
Perhaps someone else has a finger on these issues.
BTW Louis; I had a few other contacts dealing with drill cores every day including BMR.
Gavin: Henry’s law?
Don’t think it has much too do with deep ocean but the surface to air interface.
ln(p) = ln(kc) p is partial pressure in air above the surface, c is concentration in solution at the surface & k obviously is a constant.
don’t have a finger on any other issue.
“My point is about the use of signifiers like ‘denier’ (and rhetorical devises like ‘real’) to suppress the dissent hat is fundamental to science.”
My use of the word denier is in reference to those who use obviously lunatic theories and sources as a means arguing against AGW. TGGWS is a good example. Amongst a few scientists such as Christy, we have obvious nutters like Corbyn.
If the science against the AGW case is good enough, then that is all that is necessary. Why do we get people like Corbyn, Archibald, and half the content of E&E padded out with obvious rubbish by halfwits? That is denialism.
McIntyre and his relentless pursuit of Hansen, Jones and Mann, with childish catchcries of “Where’s Waldo” and “run for the ice”. There are hundreds of scientists and papers used as the basis for supporting claims for AGW. Why the obsessions with a few, and the personal attacks on them?
New Scientist said a while ago that the ‘sceptic’ side had to raise their standard if they wanted to be taken seriously.
Luke has pointed out already an appearance on ClimateAudit by Svalgaard, in which he admonished Archibald for saying the figures should be fiddled when they didn’t fit. That’s what’s necessary.
“There are 3,000 of them.How many would you say are wrong?”
There can be various errors with science. A ‘systematic’ error means the same error is made with every measurement.
Luke, Your response demonstrates amply (yet again) the problem with internet trolls who are not prepared to enter discussions under their own names, and yet cannot rise above personal abuse. No personal responsibility, but personal abuse. I think other reader can form their own opinions as to where the ‘shrill rantings’ are coming from.
For example, what’s with ‘you guys in your secret societies like Lavoisier look pretty spooky.’ I am not now, nor have I ever been a ‘in’ the Lavoisier Society. I have given them a lecture, but then so too have I in my time addressed the Academy of Science, the National Academies Forum (3x), the Royal Society of Tasmania, the Australian Labor Party, the Total Environment Centre, etc. I’m not a member of any of those, either. Next you’ll be suggesting that I’m a stooge of the Murdoch Empire because I read the Australian! I’ve also been a member of the Joint Academies Committee on Sustainability (chaired by Graeme Pearman) and am fractionally on the staff of the Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems Cooperative Research Centre. All of this is verifiable. I’ve observed a few climate modellers in my day. And you (whovever you might be)? And how might we verify the claims of the anonymous? Answer: reason and evidence. Does it really matter who you are, or how many climate modellers I’ve spoken to. Why not stick to reason and evidence? You simply demean yourself (and your arguments – some of which have merit) by not doing so. I see SJT has joined you, deciding who are ‘nutters’ and who are (by implication) ‘sane’. You both would have happily sent Galileo to the stake!
And McIntyre has ‘relentlessly pursued’ not Hansen, Jones and Mann, but THEIR DATA. He shouldn’t have had to. He has performed an invaluable service to science, just as you have the opportunity to do if you can find faults with the Argo data. That’s how it works.
IN contrast, look at what Luke and SJT serve up in their two most recent posts:
armchair critic
conspiratorial tossers
piffly
secret societies
spooky
shrill rantings
denier
lunatic
nutters
rubbish
halfwits
childish
obsessions
They condemn themselves by their refusal to stick to reason and evidence.
Luke, my argument is about the ‘piffling issues’ that can compound in their effect if excused from scrutiny. You’ll see an example on the cover of my book, with the NASA image of minimal ice extent in 1979, where they had no data for the immediate polar region, so just filled it in with a white disc. Their graphics were so poor you could see the edges of the disk. I looked at the image the other day, and found they have modified it again resorted to the airbrush again to hide their error. The is hardly the right stuff. It is best described as bullshitting: not outright lying, but perhaps more pernicious, because it gives a misleading impression of reliability. My faith in any public agency that would resort to this not once, but twice, is seriously diminished.
How many ‘piffling’ little errors and acts of bullshitting are acceptable? I’d likke too aim for as few as possible, and this means celebrating, rather than abusing, those who point them out. Good luck to you for questioning the Argo data – just make sure you also question your theory.
Anysley: You simply demean yourself (and your arguments – some of which have merit) by not doing so.
Minor point he is anonymous he only demeans the fictional personage he presents not the person behind it, but that is the point of anonymity. It also means he can put forward arguments, that no sane person would stand behind, with impunity and free of any consequence.
“By the way Luke,
Do you know how many floats were sending data errors?
Hint: The answer is in one of the internal links.
Posted by: sunsettommy at March 22, 2008 07:53 AM”
When will you honestly answer a simple question?
Hint: It is in the link.
If you already looked it up.I can understand why you will not answer the question.
LOL
“There are 3,000 of them.How many would you say are wrong?”
There can be various errors with science. A ‘systematic’ error means the same error is made with every measurement.
Posted by: SJT at March 22, 2008 01:32 Pm
It is obvious that you have not taken my hints I posted to Luke.
In the internal link.They show you the number of robots sending biased reports.That had to be corrected.
Hint: Most of the erring robots are from ONE region of ONE of the oceans.
Hint: The answer is in the link.
Luke:
“So as I said maybe they’re right – if so very interesting – maybe they’re not. Let’s just give it a few months and see what transpires. Early days.”
Of course you will write that.You will refuse to read the internal link I keep referring to that would give you the answer.To how many of the float robots were erring.
Hint: The number is in the link.
It is possible that you have already read the internal link.Thereby seeing that your whole argument become nonsense.Will continue to avoid answering my relevant question.
That is why I stated that you over ran your mouth and now you are trapped.
Aynsley – Tellingly – you have “observed” a few climate modellers have you – and as a member of a CRC board. Well gee that’s nice of you. In a petri dish? Did you communicate with any of them?
My comment was generic about the style of the contrarian movement in general, and you have been quoted as being a member, but if you are not I retract any such implication unreservedly. But be fair and make a little list of all the words used by your compatriots on here – like “turd” and so forth – but you haven’t and so don’t be hypocritical.
How about we start with the looong list of denialist try-ons over many years – oh no wouldn’t want to comment on that. As anything for the “cause” is acceptable.
I’m fear it’s you guys that would have BBQ’ed Galileo – the heavy overtones of authority are omininous.
Aynsley – yes it would be wonderful to have a cordial discussion sticking with the facts – doesn’t happen on her I’m afraid. But we will endeavour to improve our tone with yourself.
BTW – you have ducked it but the Hansen Y2K stuff was piffly – would you have described it as significantly changing your of global temperature trends or even US trends?
And interestingly you chose not to use one of your compatriots examples such as the revision of the UAH data sets. How about some balance?
Corbyn is a nutter. The evidence is there, he has a ‘secret’ methodology that he reveals to no one. Yet he is invited to speak at ‘sceptic’ conferences, and appear on ‘sceptic’ documentaries. That’s where I draw the line, between ‘sceptic’ and ‘denier’. Lift your game. If the science is valid, then it’s all you need. No need to rely on people who do not know a thing about science or how to practice it.
I have not said the same about Christy, Spencer, Pielke, etc. I think they are wrong, but they are not nutcases.
The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt.
–Bertrand Russell
Sunset Sunset Sunset – you have become tedious:
In their revised paper Willis and Lyman et al state:
Most of the rapid decrease in globally integrated 18 upper (0–750 m) ocean heat
content anomalies (OHCA) between 2003 and 2005 reported by Lyman et al. [2006]
appears to be an artifact resulting from the combination of two different instrument biases
recently discovered in the in situ profile data. Although Lyman et al. [2006] carefully
estimated sampling errors, they did not investigate potential biases among different
instrument types. One such bias has been identified in a subset of Argo float profiles.
This error will ultimately be corrected. However, until corrections have been made these
data can be easily excluded from OHCA estimates (see http://www.argo.ucsd.edu/ for
more details). Another bias was caused by eXpendable BathyThermograph (XBT) data
that are systematically warm compared to other instruments [Gouretski and Koltermann,
2007]. Both biases appear to have contributed equally to the spurious cooling.
Yes I have noted the individual WMO numbers of the 58, 196, and 227 floats in various categories. I have also noted the issues with XBT data and satellite data involved in data set calibration, rectification and correction. We have been having a wider discussion about issue with high tech instruments in climate science. The ocean temperature data probes have had enough errors to change analytical intrepretation of the results – THE POINT !
I also noted the sage words of RC on this issue last year:
“Scientists working in a field build up a certain intuition about how things ‘work’. This intuition can come from a gut instinct, deep theoretical understanding, robust model results, long experience with observations etc. New results that fall outside of that framework often have a tough time getting accepted, but if they are solid and get subsequent support they will generally be incorporated. But that intuition is also very good at detecting results that just don’t fit. When that happens, scientists spend a lot of time thinking about what might be wrong – with the data, the analysis, the model or the interpretation. It generally pays to withhold judgment until that process is finished.”
The broader context for periodic cooling is also stated in Willis, Lyman et al’s introduction where they discuss how decadal periods of variability exist.
Their introduction says:
“With over 1000 times the heat capacity of the atmosphere, the World Ocean is the
largest repository for changes in global heat content [Levitus et al., 2005]. Monitoring
ocean heat content is therefore fundamental to detecting and understanding changes in the
Earth’s heat balance. Past estimates of the global integral of ocean heat content anomaly
(OHCA) indicate an increase of 14.5 × 1022 J from 1955 to 1998 from the surface to 3000
m [Levitus et al., 2005] and 9.2 (± 1.3) × 1022 J from 1993 to 2003 in the upper (0 – 750
m) ocean [Willis et al. 2004]. These increases provide strong evidence of global
warming. Climate models exhibit similar rates of ocean warming, but only when forced
by anthropogenic influences [Gregory et al., 2004; Barnett et al., 2005; Church et al.,
2005; Hansen et al., 2005].
While there has been a general increase in the global integral of OHCA during the
last half century, there have also been substantial decadal fluctuations, including a short
period of rapid cooling (6 × 1022 J of heat lost in the 0–700 m layer) from 1980 to 1983
[Levitus et al., 2005]. Most climate models, however, do not contain unforced decadal
variability of this magnitude [Gregory et al., 2004; Barnett et al., 2005, their Figure S1;
Church et al., 2005; and Hansen et al., 2005] and it has been suggested that such
fluctuations in the observational record may be due to inadequate sampling of ocean
temperatures [Gregory et al., 2004]. We have detected a new cooling event that began in
2003 and is comparable in magnitude to the one in the early 1980s. Using highresolution
satellite data to estimate sampling error, we find that both the recent event and
the cooling of the early 1980s are significant with respect to these errors.”
So Sunset – still not convinced on the published history of our SST data that issues of calibration still do not lurk. That’s all I have been saying.
So my position stands.
Other possibilities are that the scientists are not actually understanding what their data are telling them. AS THE LEAD PRESS ARTICLE SAYS.
So I’ve simply been saying – let’s not count chickens. Sunset would have had a whole clutch in the 1980-83 as well. There are too many unresolved factors here.
If the data, analysis and trends stand up – so be it ! Let the reality cards fall where they do. What are YOU going to do when the temperature starts to increase again.
Funny that Aynesley didn’t add “tripped over your mouth” to his list. But that’s those blinkers for ya.
It’s always revealing when people read information into the words of others that isn’t there, and turns out to be wrong. I am not on the Board of a CRC, Luke. Neither did I say I was. I said I was fractionally on the staff. ‘Your shrill rantings are just bouncing off policy types and leaving them cold.’ ?? Actually, Luke, the ‘policy types’ in the Greenhouse Office (now Dept of Climate Change) are the clients and sponsors of the CRC. And far from ducking ‘the Hansen Y2K stuff’, I gave you reasons why small errors can cumulate, and why NASA had ‘form’ in not fessing up. But then i ‘have been quoted as being a member’ of Lavoisier. Must be true then. Guess I must have signed up in one of my delusional moments or perhaps I don’t rate as a nutter for SJT. But if having a ‘ “secret” methodology that he reveals to no one’ is the test, I guess SJT includes Michael Mann.
Well small errors have not accumulated – it makes no difference in this case. They couldn’t fess up as they didn’t know – it was an error.
Quiggin quoted you as a member in 2005 and from a variety of other presentations and papers it seemed not implausible. We stand corrected.
Again you have declined to comment on any of the goofs of your compatriots in skepticism. Strange. Anything for the cause – doesn’t matter if it’s actually wrong.
Luke: They couldn’t fess up as they didn’t know – it was an error.
If that was that there was to it I wouldn’t have mentioned it as I see it as a normal part of doing science. Try as we might we rarely get it 100% right all the time. There really are two issues here:
1 It took 7 years before it was discovered greater transparency might (note I don’t say definitely) have brought it to light sooner. Steven McIntyre had to do some reverse engineering to work out what it was once an oddity was noticed in one series. This aught not to have been necessary.
2 After being notified of the error Dr Hansen made the necessary adjustment that was good but then he made another unpublished adjustment. I had two different series that were supposedly the same data set, of course I discarded the first. The two different leader boards at least are archived at CA.
If I was using UAH data i can go to the website and get a record of adjustments made and why they are made and keep up to date with it by looking at that. I’m unlikely to download a set to update an older set only to find something has changed unannounced.
If an organisation is in the business of providing data for researchers surely it makes good sense to keep their clients updated. The former above does not bespeak good practice the latter is better.
Beck gets a beating.
http://rabett.blogspot.com/2008/03/beckies-as-tonstant-weader-knows-eli.html
Will Aynsley be critical SJT?
So, Pukey Lukey, we’ve gone from “Hockey stick isn’t important to me as an AGW issue” to “Hockey Stick nah – McIntyre has succeeded”. Wow, progress! You sure now? The hockey stick is dead? So, I guess that must be the official word now from Climate Hysteria Central, eh?
“disasters all the time and the word catastrophic”
The only one here blathering about “disasters” and “catastrophic” is you, Pukey Lukey. But go ahead and deny away, as diaper-filled, drooling pablum gobbling climate hysterics all do.
It is so amusing.
BWAHAHAHAHAHA,
It is apparently too hard for Luke to answer a simple question.
The simple question that was NEVER answered:
“By the way Luke,
Do you know how many floats were sending data errors?
Hint: The answer is in one of the internal links.
Posted by: sunsettommy at March 22, 2008 07:53 AM”
I think you know the answer.Because you are all over the page bringing up a smokescreen hoping that I get sidetracked.With your Lyman paper as bait.You are desperate.
The answer is clearly specified in the internal link.The low number is fully listed too.Many of them already corrected last october.
Do you realize that I have been making a fool of you?
You make it so easy.
Sunsettommy:With your Lyman paper as bait.
Excuse my ignorance but what is a Lyman paper?
Willis and Lyman published a science paper several years ago.Claiming that the oceans cooled off rapidly in a short time.It was later revised with a modified conclusion.That that little or no cooling has taken place.
It was covered in some detail over at Pielke’s website at the time.
I was responding to Luke’s desperate attempt to throw me off the question I keep asking him.I accused him of using the Lyman paper as bait in his desperate effort to avoid answering my question.The answer in detail is in the Argos link Luke has so generously provided for us.The one he barely read at all.
He is practicing his deflection very well.
sunsettomy: Thanks.
SunDown – You really are dense. Did I ever say it’s the same error. What a nut case. You have not read anything I have written.
It was not “many years ago” either. Are you sure you’re even talking on the right blog. You seem confused.
And no Bruce knob – all McIntyre has “succeeded” in doing is creating confusion. Which after all is what desperate denialists like to do.
Try to keep up Jan – it’s called reading.
Hey SJT will our resident academic complain about “diaper-filled, drooling pablum gobbling climate hysterics all do”
Will we see a new list? Doubt it.
“Will Aynsley be critical SJT?”
Apparently not. Therefor, he’s a denier.
Luke, Sow the wind, you reap the whirlwind. I’m not going to either start a list or defend Bruce, though I do note that this comes in response to you ‘Brucey-Wosey’. What do you really expect, Luke? Why not raise the tone and adopt a mature approach to discussion?
‘We stand corrected.’ ‘we will endeavour to improve our tone with yourself’ – Is there more than one of your Luke? Or is this the royal ‘we’?
Your reliance on a false claim by Quiggin in 2005 really sums up your problem, Luke, and shows why bothering to engage with you is a ultimately a waste of time. It was nicely summed up by the late Mary Douglas:
‘News that is going to be accepted as true information has to be wearing a badge of loyalty to the particular regime which the person supports: the rest is suspect, deliberately censored or unconsciously ignored’.
Got you in a nutshell, Luke. Bye!
“Kellow, A. J. and Boehmer-Christiansen, S.”
Are you talking about yourself? Do you think that the majority of climate change papers published in E&E are not of academic quality, and would get published nowhere else?
Luke:Try to keep up Jan – it’s called reading.
I do a lot of reading and there is much material that have to keep up with related to the work I do. I can’t read it all there just isn’t time.
It is apparent that Luke will not answer a simple question.
Thanks for helping the skeptic’s camp once again.
Maybe someday you will stop making long winded replies and just answer a simple question.
“all McIntyre has “succeeded” in doing is creating confusion.”
We know Luke, it’s horrible to be confused by the facts.
Why can’t we just blame humanity for everything. Grab all the freedom, money and power in the name of saving the planet, and stop confusing everyone with truth that is really inconvienient to the warmers?
The way that you can always spot a left wing fascist like Luke is that they are always hoping that something horrible will happen. They are not actually just warning you of some catstrophe, they are in fact praying for it. So you can see why they are so offended when any scientific evidence comes along that normal people would consider to be good news in the AGW debate.
“Oh well the satellite data must be bunk too then, given they mirror the other series. Spencer and Christy cop it again … poor guys.”
Unfortunately, satellites don’t pop up with direct surface temp readings. They have no choice but to calibrate themselves to the surface temp stations. As time goes on they will become more independent. For now, you cannot prove anything by the correlation.
“Given the way things are melting we must be cooling then.”
Given that we now have a positive three fourth of a million square kilometer sea ice anomaly, I’m not too impressed by the melting.
Basically, any fool can see that there is no emperical evidence for alarmism. If you want to cry wolf, you have to rely on the models. And the models have yet to show that they can predict anything.
“Given that we now have a positive three fourth of a million square kilometer sea ice anomaly, I’m not too impressed by the melting.”
That is not the type of ice that was there before. What was there before was long term, “permanent” ice. What is appearing now is shallow ice that melts much more quickly.
I see sunnyboy’s still harking about 200 odd probes that weren’t dancing to the right tune.
Reckon, all you bright fellows are finger scraping the cooks mixing bowl trying to taste a cake even with 5000 sea roving bots
SJT – that’s amazing eh ? – Kellow, A. J. and Boehmer-Christiansen, S., 2002
WE really are gullible nice people aren’t WE.
Could this be the editor of E&E – that erudite publication of renown that publishes luminaries like Archibald, and Australia’s greatest climate analyst, and CO2 chemists?
Wasn’t it Wegman that went on about social networks. Maybe WE need to investigate further.
Will Aynsley document this one in any sequel on virtuous science?
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/03/remember_eg_becks_dodgy.php#commentsArea
Shame denialists shame!
Let those who are fair dinkum speak up !
Luke: Let those who are fair dinkum speak up !
If i was a UNSW computer science student I might take Time Lambert seriously on computer science issues even then I doubt I would. In this case he is just regurgitating third hand, fourth rate material we can see on a thousand blogs around the world.
I’m pretty sure whether he is right or wrong knows more chemistry than Lambert does.
Irrelevant Jan – read it. I assume you then think that Charles Keeling and Harro Meijer are fourth rate. Try to engage 1st gear at least Jan.
Lambert has a great track record for busting denialist scams wide open. That’s why you hate him.
This is a threshold test for skeptic fair dinkumness. All we’re gonna hear are crickets or a whiny little psuedo-defence such as yours.
err …Ralph Keeling
Luke :Lambert has a great track record for busting denialist scams wide open. That’s why you hate him.
I ignore him I don’t know that he has as you say “busting denialist scams wide open.”
I don’t hate him I’m indifferent to him.
Your problem is Luke that you more readily accept the opinion of rank amateurs in any field if they say what you want to hear than you do the professionals the they say what you don’t want to hear.
If keeling has something to say about CO2 analysis I’ll listen (he’s probably got better methods now than the ones I used 40 years ago) if he has something to say about genetics I won’t pay much attention. It’s not about what Keeling has to say but Lambert’s interpretation that I care not one whit about, same goes for junkscience which I look at probably at a lot less than you do. Do you get it yet?
Gavin:
“I see sunnyboy’s still harking about 200 odd probes that weren’t dancing to the right tune.
Reckon, all you bright fellows are finger scraping the cooks mixing bowl trying to taste a cake even with 5000 sea roving bots.”
I see that gavrinny is just as evasive as Luke.
Corrections,It is 3110 robots.The number of erring robots was 198.mostly from one ocean.
The number of errors was small to start with.Then as clearly stated in the internal link.Many of them have been corrected.The rest that have not are “greylisted”.
Then we have this from the posted NPR link:
“There has been a very slight cooling, but not anything really significant,” Willis says.So the buildup of heat on Earth may be on a brief hiatus. “Global warming doesn’t mean every year will be warmer than the last. And it may be that we are in a period of less rapid warming.”
LOL
sunsettomy: you can actually see the metamorphosis from cooling to warming in this sentence rather starkly.
“There has been a very slight cooling, but not anything really significant,” Willis says.So the buildup of heat on Earth may be on a brief hiatus. “Global warming doesn’t mean every year will be warmer than the last. And it may be that we are in a period of less rapid warming.”
I noticed that Willis is covering both bases.
Imagine a scientist speaking this way.
Besides Willis must not be paying attention to the weather temperature reports from MSU,RSS,HadleyCrut3,CRU…… for the years 2001-2008.A slight cooling trend.
LOL
susnsettommy it’s more than just covering both bases it’s a classic semantic slippery slope.
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/slipslop.html
it’s the second one on the page. It postulates an absurdity or paradox through vagueness i.e. cooler = warmer by slighlty cooler => slower warming where slower => less warming and less warming => less warmth (working backwards up the slope)
I agree.
Over at Tim Blair.I had remarked that Willis speaks with a forked tongue.
“And it may be that we are in a period of less rapid warming.”
He is way off here since there has not been any “rapid warming” trend for 9 years now.
I think Willis is a compromised scientist.
sunsettomy :since there has not been any “rapid warming” trend for 9 years now.
leave out “rapid” and “trend” and I’ll agree. Hey I’ll even agree if you replace ‘rapid’ with ‘slow’ or ‘slight’.
” I think Willis is a compromised scientist.”
I doubt Willis was even aware of the illogic of his statement. Certainly no-one in his clique will point it out even if they notice.
Lambert is just a good clearing house for information on various topics he is interested in. He understands the topic much better than I do, but he always relies on authoritave sources for his claims.
In this case he is just passing on the bad news abouts Becks’ abomination of a paper on CO2. In fact he points out the fundamental absurdity of it, which even a layman like me can spot at ten paces.
“You really didn’t have to know anything at all about the history and practice of measuring CO2 to deduce that was something wrong Beck’s theory that there were wild fluctuations in CO2 concentration that suddenly ended when the most accurate measurements started.”
So, please, disregard anything Lambert says if you want to.
Just :-
* Use your own intelligence to understand why Beck’s paper is utter nonsense.
* If that doesn’t work, read the thoughts of Harro Meijer and Ralph Keeling.
Anyone who defends Beck’s paper has to be a denier. Anyone who does not accept Beck’s paper but does not accept AGW may well be an AGW skeptic.
“Anyone who defends Beck’s paper has to be a denier. Anyone who does not accept Beck’s paper but does not accept AGW may well be an AGW skeptic”
You have no idea how dumb this is.
LOL
Well put SJT.
Jan: I doubt Willis is having two bob each way, just hasn’t got enough of a trend yet.
Sunny: Still licking your fingers?
Gavin still trying to be relevant?
How about the scary idea of posting an actual counterpoint?
I see that you endorse SJT’s insulting language.Must be part of your way of thinking.Demonize the guys who does not agree with you.
What utter drivel. There’s been a hiatus before. You guys are going to be scarce as hen’s teeth when the temperature starts to rise again.
Sunset thinks because one set of issues has been fixed in a few floats there will never be any calibration issues again in the history of the universe. There was enough issues with the floats and the XBT data to cause a reinterpretation of the trends. THE POINT !
So anyway denialists – you know – just for the record – do we hear any support for Beck’s E&E paper. Don’t be shy now. Step right up?
And if you don’t support – will we be hearing howls of outrage – or is a case of Nexus6 type (b) “making shit up” is OK.
And how’s the cooling disaster forecast coming along – when can we read it? ROTFL.
SJT:Anyone who defends Beck’s paper has to be a denier.
Who has died to make you the judge?
As far as Beck’s paper is concerned I’m really not interested nor am I interested in Lambert and if you think he is more qualified than you are yourself in these matters, you are probably selling yourself short. That however is your choice but don’t expect others to share your choice.
No back to Willis and his robots.
Gavin: Well put SJT.
Do you always consider OT distractions “well put”?
“I doubt Willis is having two bob each way, just hasn’t got enough of a trend yet.”
I didn’t say he was, are you trying to mount a strawman argument here?
“Who has died to make you the judge?
As far as Beck’s paper is concerned I’m really not interested nor am I interested in Lambert and if you think he is more qualified than you are yourself in these matters, you are probably selling yourself short. That however is your choice but don’t expect others to share your choice.”
I’m just setting the bar. Beck’s paper is not worth a brass farthing. It’s obviously rubbish, even I can see that, Lambert or not. Lambert is just passing on the opinions of two experts. According to both of them, Beck’s paper is rubbish, E&E should be explaining why it was ever published by them. Anyone who thinks it is valid science has to be a denier, since it is so obviously bad.
SJT:I’m just setting the bar. Beck’s paper is not worth a brass farthing. It’s obviously rubbish, even I can see that, Lambert or not.
So you are really just posting irrelevant distractions.
Why?
Jan: I should share this item from this evening as we have just finished a long chat with a R/L expert on law and evidence gathering and his wife about the world in general. These folk in their retirement run the neighbourhood tree planting program so we got round to drought and its current impact on all of us.
My partner and I had visited both creeks and were amazed to find one bone dry and the other mostly stagnant but still oozing under the ford. I was curious how others see the future of this very parched landscape. I eventually asked this couple how they knew our climate had changed. They were curious why I even bothered to ask.
Turns out this greening group includes experts in both soils and streams also the district has been under study for ages. As a result, crack willow infestations became a major target. However IMO, total stream bank clearing and water course exposure creates other problems if reeds and grasses fail too.
Point two: The ARGO news mentioned how a VIP could not attend because of a bereavement in the family. Let’s say these things are distracting enough at the best of times but I can still ask a house guest doing real environment science where he gets his leads from at uni and how many fresh docs appear in a month on his subjects. It seems one uni in oz beats this blog hands down and he suggests I leave it in favour of private subs to several mags like Nature.
I dare not reveal to him how much fun I’ve had in mixed company here. The retired cop knows how it is though; the other side of our chat tonight was about young constables loosing customers on their way to the mortuary.
I’m just trying to sort out the sceptics from the deniers. Is Beck’s paper rubbish or not? It’s a pretty easy question.
Gavin,
What on earth are you on about. Now do your tree planting couple realise and do you realise cold => dry.
Look at the ice core records you’ll see high dust in Vostok ice cores during cold. Makes Willis finding less surprising.
It’s London to a brick it came from Australia with high pressure cells over the Tasman.
“the other side of our chat tonight was about young constables loosing customers on their way to the mortuary.?
Did they pinch their cars and drive away?
SJT: Is Beck’s paper rubbish or not? It’s a pretty easy question.
It’s also irrelevant to the topic here if any one ever brings it up and posts a lead article about it I *might* read it. In the meantime you are still wasting time and bandwidth on irrelevance.
It’s a pretty simple question. You just have to type “yes” or “no”.
Is Beck’s paper rubbish?
Is Beck’s paper rubbish?
Don’t know I haven’t read it. You have to realise ‘yes’ and ‘no’ are not the only possible answers. Now you are still wasting time and band bidwidth posting irrelevanced.
Why?
Are you some sort of troll? Now you answer.
Green v maturity and blinkered thinking
The application of the term “green” took on a new meaning tonight depending on how experienced the user is. In my past it referred to freshly sawn timber, something we avoided using because its dimensions had not settled and similarly with unseasoned iron castings destined for engine blocks.
Jan: Data can be so artificial.
The guru studying stats for elevated crime in adjacent suburbs noticed differences say. 25% v 75%. The simple answer for the apparent difference was a block of housing units straddle the boarder.
Guess who created that differential crime growth? Only those writing up incidents round this public housing estate. They failed to notice the suburban division within the complex and attributed all incidents to one entrance.
BTW Hot = dry, as I pointed out last week those 33+ days were near record.
Typical assumptions and navigation
The lost customers bit was about us finding a particular location without an address or appropriate instructions in the middle of urban redevelopment, all great fun during admin shutdowns over Easter. Note map reading was part of my PS work. Updating the public info is desirable but will any of us get round to it this side of 09 ? probably not.
IMO questioning due process is best left in the hands of the most experienced amongst us if we need it all to run to reasonable times. Correctness in official procedures can by itself be the handicap in thinking through issues and that foils the whole program.
Considering our loops of inquiry yesterday there were two young guys in blue, a justice official on the phone and a report from his consulting physician. Outside the official loop, a RN with ICU and medical insurance experience also two former technicians, both with medical research backgrounds. In the end, commonsense prevailed but it was a battle of wits. Outcomes such as this are most desirable but can we guarantee it every time? No!
As retired PS or private sector vets we can sometimes add to the current debates but its more likely old strings get pulled. Green by association? Hardly it’s just the older working class that can’t give up on a challenge.
Gavin Hot = dry, as I pointed out last week those 33+ days were near record.
Sorry to disappoint you the long term (450000 years I think is long enough) empirical data says otherwise. And the poor old boarder hasn’t got a block of housing units sitting on him.
As a tropical type ( i left Indonesia early in life but i still have relatives there to visit) I can tell you it’s hot and moist but there isn’t 1000 miles of desert for the sea breeze to fly over first
Jan: Are you saying we cannot see climate change in SE Oz at this point in time?
Now if you are Jan, while another from my area after doing several years of research in the field and on records said only yesterday there is heaps of evidence now that warming in our region clearly has not stopped in any way lately, who do you say is pulling my leg?
BTW where are you based?
Gavin: I’m in Sydney.
We do see climate change we didn’t get much summer until autumn and it’s cool again. I’ll be back under the doona tonight.
I’ve been playing I movie putting together a slide show of the camping trips I organised for some of the nursing where I work. I haven’t been able to persuade them to do an overnight hike yet so I do that alone. Anyway I’m heading for bed no it’s work tomorrow afternoon.
me: “I’ve been playing with iMovie” Definitely bedtime.
Luke:
Sunset thinks because one set of issues has been fixed in a few floats there will never be any calibration issues again in the history of the universe. There was enough issues with the floats and the XBT data to cause a reinterpretation of the trends. THE POINT !
SST:
Now you are trying to put words in my mouth.Never have I stated that there would be no more corrections.Never did I state that those corrections would be the end of the problem.They had to “graylist” a number of the floats.Untill a solution to the problem can be determined.
You you just don’t get it.The POINT I was making was that they identified and made many corrections BEFORE they released the 5 year data report.The one that claims a slight cooling of the ocean waters.This was done LAST YEAR.
Luke:
So anyway denialists – you know – just for the record – do we hear any support for Beck’s E&E paper. Don’t be shy now. Step right up?
And if you don’t support – will we be hearing howls of outrage – or is a case of Nexus6 type (b) “making shit up” is OK.
SST:
I actually have that paper in full.I doubt you actually read it.Since some of the data was used by Keeling and others.They obviously thought it had some merit.
But since you are arrogantly deflecting from the topic.So I will leave you hanging.
LUKE:
And how’s the cooling disaster forecast coming along – when can we read it? ROTFL.
SST:
What disaster cooling forcast?
I have in other forums stated that this cooling trend of a year.May all be caused by the La-ninya phenomenon.
I also consider the great cooldown in a few decades time as speculation.Similar to the overrated IPCC 50-100 temperature projections.They are both unvalidated and speculative.
You simply have a hard time answering a simple question.It centered on just what was talked about in the internal ARGO link.Nothing more.
LOL
“What was there before was long term, “permanent” ice.”
What happened to that “permanent” ice when the Northwest passage opened in the 30s and 50s”?
“And it may be that we are in a period of less rapid warming.”
Since we are not in a period of “less rapid” CO2 increase, how does this fit the models?
“THE MODELS ARE ALWAYS RIGHT, WE JUST NEED LARGER ERROR BANDS – OR ELSE REALITY NEEDS ADJUSTING.” ROFL.
I love it that the AGW people are now talking in such highly technical terms as “taking a breather”. Almost makes you believe that they think of warming as some sort of sentient being that was produced by the coming together of the collective evil of conservative white males and oil company execs. But even evil beings must take a break before they continue down their villanous path. 😉
Anyone who doubts that AGW has become a religion has not looked closely at the words of its proponents.
“Is Beck’s paper rubbish?
Don’t know I haven’t read it. You have to realise ‘yes’ and ‘no’ are not the only possible answers. Now you are still wasting time and band bidwidth posting irrelevanced.
Why?
Are you some sort of troll? Now you answer.”
Becks paper has been frequently referred to here, uncritically, as one more reason for AGW being wrong. Are you afraid you’ll tread on a few toes if you call it a fake?
SJT: I’m wondering if you noticed the topic Willis’s robots and ocean temperature. Apart from a hiatus in cooling in the Australian south west it has been cooling the past decade. The Willis buoys seem to agree that there has been a tendency of oceans to cool do you think this information s correct or is it fake?
“The Willis buoys seem to agree that there has been a tendency of oceans to cool”
Jan: your question re above “do you think this information s correct or is it fake?” is not appropriate after such a fuzzy worded lead in.
IMO Willis n Co can’t claim global cooling yet based on their info. More important is another question about CO2 absorption and its current rate of change
Lets assume that the Argo readings are correct & that the oceans down to 3,000 ft. have slightly cooled over the past 4-5 years; I think this is a reasonable assumption (call this heat loss A). We also know from satellite measurements (UAH & RSS) that tropospheric temperatures have decreased slightly over the same period (call the heat loss from this B).
Now CO2 concentrations (Mauna Loa) have increased by 10.28 ppm in the 5 years till Dec 07 (NOAA). According to GHG theory this increase in CO2 would have caused a significant IR radiation adsorption and the heat imbalance resulting in a buildup of energy in the earth’s atmosphere & oceans (call this heat gain C).
Now let heat leakage (loss) = L = A + B + C.
Where has L = A + B + C gone?
It’s not in the earth’s oceans (down to 3,000 ft.) nor in the troposphere. In the NPR link at the top of Paul’s post, Kevin Trenberth (at NCAR) hypothesises that “its probably gone back into space”.
This is an incredible statement coming from someone from the AGW consensus.
Lindzen et al, 2001, proposed the Iris hypothesis where increased sea temperatures in the tropics would result in reduced cirrus clouds & thus more infrared radiation leakage from the earth’s atmosphere.
This theory is backed up by Spencer et al, 2007. He proposes that earth’s precipitation systems act as nature’s air conditioner, moderating temperature if it gets too hot or too cold. see :-
http://www.weatherquestions.com/Roy-Spencer-on-global-warming.htm
The other probable reason for the “missing” heat (not referred to directly in the linked NPR article and showing the author’s bias , IMO) may be that natural causes (meaning sun), by cooling, have countered the increased warming effect of GHG’s over this period (Call this cooling effect D).
Thus L = A + B + C – D.
Gavin: is not appropriate after such a fuzzy worded lead in.
You miss what is important and I suspect that is a deliberate distraction on your part.
It’s NOT of topic.
Geoff: Lets assume that the Argo readings are correct & that the oceans down to 3,000 ft. have slightly cooled over the past 4-5 years;
Given the ocean surface warming has something like an 800 year lag (using the CO2 thermometer in the ice cores) how much cooling (or warming) do we really expect to be able to see over 4-5 years? If we see any it’s likely tobe significant.
Bear in mind when we see surface warming due to El Nino in 1998 there is a big dump of ocean heat and CO2 (we can see the bump in the Keeling curve) going on.
Jan “Given the ocean surface warming has something like an 800 year lag (using the CO2 thermometer in the ice cores) how much cooling (or warming) do we really expect to be able to see over 4-5 years? If we see any it’s likely to be significant”.
I think we need to discriminate between long term changes in the steep rising and falling temperature portions of the glaciation series (as in the ice cores) and short term changes, say over a few years, across the whole of these series.
IMO the 800 year lag doesn’t disprove AGW/CO2 warming & I don’t think its correct to “extrapolate” it to the short term. However the ice core data were used by Al Gore, IMO ignorantly or dishonestly, to infer proof of AGW/CO2, but that is another story.
Jan “Bear in mind when we see surface warming due to El Nino in 1998 there is a big dump of ocean heat and CO2 (we can see the bump in the Keeling curve) going on”.
I don’t disagree & CO2 out-gassing & absorption undoubtedly occurs as ocean temperatures change over any timescale. However it is very clear that CO2 has increased by approximately 10 ppm over the past 5 years.
Geoff: However it is very clear that CO2 has increased by approximately 10 ppm over the past 5 years.
and temperatures haven’t.
“IMO the 800 year lag doesn’t disprove AGW/CO2 warming & I don’t think its correct to “extrapolate” it to the short term.”
Some have actually shown a short term lag of about 6-9 months I’ve brought this up here before and at this stage I don’t know how the came to it I haven’t been able to replicate it to my satisfaction though I have been able to replicate it.
Important to this post is James Hansen’s “this energy imbalance is the ‘smoking gun’ we have been looking for” paper, written in 2005, and published in Science- this reference is directly from Hansen’s site: –
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/imbalance_release.pdf
See also this BBC article from April 2005 on this: –
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4495463.stm
And one critique of the paper here: –
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=593
I mention these for context. The Hansen article was written showing 10 years of increasing ocean heat content (approx. 6 w. yr./m2), to 2003, against model hind casting.
I wonder: –
1. What the model projection 2003-2008 would have looked like?
2.What a rewrite of this would look like now we have 5 years more data- & data from a better system BTW? I’m not holding my breath.
“SJT: I’m wondering if you noticed the topic Willis’s robots and ocean temperature. Apart from a hiatus in cooling in the Australian south west it has been cooling the past decade. The Willis buoys seem to agree that there has been a tendency of oceans to cool do you think this information s correct or is it fake?”
I’m saying five years is too soon to be able to make a meaningful analysis yet. There could be several factors at work we don’t understand yet. There have been several instances in the temperature record where warming goes on hold for a period of about a decade or more, goes up again.
If you look at the decadal record for the past 30 years, this decade is warmer than the previous four.
SJT:If you look at the decadal record for the past 30 years
I’ve been saying that is too short and it’s an insignificant length of time in the context of the current interglacial. On the other hand 10 years is quite significant in thirty.
“I’ve been saying that is too short and it’s an insignificant length of time in the context of the current interglacial. On the other hand 10 years is quite significant in thirty.”
Cherry picking defined.
“Lindzen et al, 2001, proposed the Iris hypothesis where increased sea temperatures in the tropics would result in reduced cirrus clouds & thus more infrared radiation leakage from the earth’s atmosphere.
This theory is backed up by Spencer et al, 2007. He proposes that earth’s precipitation systems act as nature’s air conditioner, moderating temperature if it gets too hot or too cold. see :-”
Then that means the much warmer earth of the Jurassic period was impossible. 🙂
SJT: Cherry picking defined.
Thank you for the admission that it’s what you’ve been doing.
It’s long past due.
Jan: “Thank you for the admission that it’s what you’ve been doing.
It’s long past due.”
Thank you for the admission that it’s what you’ve been doing.
It’s long past due.
🙂
consider this lot for a change
http://www.idm.net.au/storypages/storysearch.asp?id=9335
oooops forgot the ACE – CRC link
http://www.acecrc.org.au/drawpage.cgi?pid=news&sid=news_news&aid=797596
Gavin I’ve found your echo cahmber it’s SJT.
Sea level rising?
Go to the colorado sealevel site. Even here the only interpration is that sea level has started dropping since 2005. For some reason they are a year behind updating the data.
I have lived by the mediterranan sea for 50 years +. We have mooring points, ladders for swimmers, that is, a lot of reference points. I cannot see any visible changes to our local sea level, and according to Archemedes, all sea levels must change equally all over the planet. One does not need rocket science to notice this lack of visible change in sea levels.
Besides, we had one of the coldest winters ever.